Kerry wins the first

Just out of curriosity ;-) Anyone have any guesses, as to what Bush was trying to draw durring the debate?

Stick figure soldiers "smoking out the enemy" maybe?

I am unsure if televised debates even serve a useful purpose anymore or if they ever did for that matter. Personally I tend to know what the
respective Democrat and Republican positions are as they pertain to most if not all the issues. That being said I did watch the debate and turned it
off about halfway through, I will watch the rest on tape later I suppose. It gets very tiring hearing the same catch phrases and repeated power words
used over and over.

The one thing I did notice in watching about an hour of the debate was that Bush was in a hurry to speak out of turn asking to respond when the rules
would not allow him, when he attacked Kerry about the ICC I noticed that Kerry wanted to have an extra retort much the same as Bush had been given a
couple times by then. At this moment Jim McLehrer had his face down in the next question to be asked, to Kerry's credit he did not blurt out a
request for another thirty seconds of time and let McLehrer ask Bush his next two minute question.

Originally posted by onlyinmydreams
Keep in mind that the next few debates are on social and domestic issues. Bush will have all the advantages when it comes to the social stuff...

On what freaking planet do you live?

You think Bush wins on social? No scratch that. You think ANY Republican wins on social?

Um, which aspect exactly? Is the desire to force rape victims to breed for their attackers by outlawing abortion? Or is it the complete lack of fiscal
responsibility? Or is it wrecking Social Security? Or is it Bush's strong stand on the ENVIRONMENT?

How about education? Rising healthcare
costs? Refusal to allow drug reimportation? Or maybe you think people are happy about the Patriot Act? Or what exactly?

Do PLEASE tell us how Bush wins on SOCIAL. He BEGGED to have Foreign Policy first (nay REFUSED to debate if it wasn't)!

The debate Bush just LOST was his STRONG SUIT!!!

Oh my God. THAT was funny. Social issues are Bush's strong suit.

Oh wait I remember, he's the one that wanted to amend the Consitution to control marriage?

NOOOOOO, it's the failure to enforce the Assualt
Weapons ban supported by 68% of Americans that's his strong suit.

Please don't fool yourself. This was supposed to be Bush's "Ace in the hole" tonight.

H-E L-O-S-T.

Now Kerry can peck away, peck away, peck away til election day.

Women will be coming back in DROVES now to the DEMOCRATIC PARTY when they get a whiff of Bush SOCIAL POLICY!

I hate to break this to you, but something like 70% of Americans support the ban on partial birth abortion. A similar number also are against gay
marriage... and even fewer americans support cloning (in case you didn't know this, the Democrats have stalled all attempts to outlaw cloning).

And, when it comes to personal social issues, Kerry has two sides and two consciences. He claims that his conscience has made him a good catholic and
that the voters of MA have elected him because of his conscience... and yet he is pro abortion. It follows, then, that he doesn't know what his
conscience is actually telling him to do. The only way he DOESN'T conflict with himself is if you buy that his own conscience has nothing to do with
his choices... in which case he can be portrayed as a purely calculating person.

And... Bush is more believable as a man of faith. I am NOT saying that religion should be a part of politics. What I AM saying is that most
americans are still Christians and Bush is clearly a more convincing Christian (and, no, I am not endorsing the christian faith, here... I'm just
pointing out that Bush is more like americans in that very important regard).

I am surprised that no one else caught Kerry's biggest flaw, IMO. He said that we should have waited for NATO to take action on Iraq; we should waid
for NATO to take action againse Iran; but, should go it alone against North Korea.

Originally posted by Disastro
Just out of curriosity ;-) Anyone have any guesses, as to what Bush was trying to draw durring the debate?

I just got an email from a "reliable source," who frequently provides secret documents to "CBS Evening News" and "60 Minutes," who states, on
the condition of anonymity, that Bush was actually working the New York Times Sunday crossword puzzle--in ink-- during the debate. Bush
reportedly seemed annoyed because Kerry kept interrupting his train of thought. None-the-less, Bush completed the puzzle without error prior to the
final statements.

No worries. I welcome your input. I still say it's "onlyinyourdreams" but we'll see.

Kerry can defend his ideological vote on the PBA easily by stating the alternative is worse. Bush's alternative. Pro-Life, no exceptions. Bush has
skated having to admit that too long. He will fall there with a majority of Americans.

It's going to be just like tonights debate or worse. Bush has been in a bubble for 4 years. He thinks he can say things like I'm for the sanctity
of life AND for women and leave it open like that to speak to all sides of the issue and straddle a fence.

Not in these debates. His extremism and fiscal failure will be exposed for all to see. Look, he can't run on promising more tax cuts.

And
that's all Republicans have on the domestic front. That's it.

Why do you think they paraded moderates all over the RNC? To keep the sorely needed moderate Republican base from fleeing in abject fear of the
fundies. I know most American are against gay marriage. So's Kerry/Edwards.

NOT THE ISSUE. It's the Federal mandate and Constitutional
pandering that isn't popular with liberals OR traditional conservatives. Neocons aren't popular with ANYBODY. And Bush is a neocon.

No. Bush wanted the Foreign Policy first because that was supposed to be his slam dunk. He's knows he's in trouble with Social issues. He's not in
touch with most of America and owned by extremists. He's screwed.

He's really in a pickle even if you don't see it yet. Just watch and see. The upcoming debates are Kerry's strong suits he's been debating 20
years, like the death penalty. Iraq was supposed to be Bush's gig.

Oh and Edwards/Cheney. Please. :shk: Cheney's got a hell of a voting record to talk about yaknow. Against aboriotn even in cases of rape and incest?
Against a resolution to free Nelson Mandela? Against any form of gun control including banning platic guns designed to avoid metal detectors? And the
Cheney flip flops are damning. The man was all over the Gulf War saying toppling Saddam woul be a mistake. Edwards will have those quotes MEMORIZED.
Oh man...you think Kerry was good? Edwards will CRUSH in debate.

PS - HALLIBURTON.

No. Bush/Cheney are trying to figure a way out of these debates now. I assure you.

Just on a side note, media in Europe reports Kerry as the undisputed winner of the debate. In Sweden it's hard to find a single positive judgement on
Bush's performance. Wish I could have seen the clash

Tonight's debate was greatly anticipated, but in my opinion failed to live up to the hype.

Kerry seemed no stranger to the debate podium and was clear and exact about his points and appeared very well informed of Bush's political flaws. In
typical Democrat fashion Kerry promised many wonderful things, an end to the war, countries coming together to help solve the world's problems

Bush did not look good, but contrary to Kerry's beliefs, politics is not about big hair and a good tan. There is a lot of talk on this thread about
Bush's seconds of silence, I think the shots of him while Kerry is speaking are the most important silences. Bush appears visibly perturbed, often
greatly annoyed, and on more than one occasion couldn't wait to rebuke Kerry's condemnations. He seemed to me to be quite adamant in what he
believes. Bush seemed to be a bit slow because we've all heard where he stands on every topic so many times it's lost all it's meaning. I hope no
one expected Bush to suddenly change his stance, to now be against the war in Iraq, to suddenly be supporting same sex marriage.

Kerry on the other hand seems to have an endless reserve of new plans and ideas. *cough*flip flop*cough*

Bush did make one damning point over and over again that was never addressed by Kerry. How does Kerry propose to pay for all these promises, how does
he plan to get countries, who were against the war, to help us with rebuilding Iraq? Kerry was offering perfect answers to complicated problems.
Granted, Iraq is quickly becoming a big mistake, but if Kerry wins, it will be his mistake to handle. Viewed through Republican eyes, Kerry has no
plan, but Kerry feels he can win based on his years as a senator and his campaign reflects that. Senators don't need a plan, they just need pretty
words and good connections. However, to "fix Bush's errors" he's going to need one hell of a plan

I'd like to restate what was said before about the American people's stance on issues such as abortion. A vast majority of the American populous is
just like Bush, Kerry would know this if he ever came out of his upper crust collegiate bubble. Most of America is average Joes and Janes, they eat at
McDonalds, they watch sitcoms and their vacations do not usually constitute ski trips to the Alps. Their votes still count though. Those polls on
who won the election are skewed, statistics lie, the average viewer will either see the debates as boring or get the abridged version in their morning
paper. The only people who would watch the debate and actually formulate an opinion as to the outcome based off the technicalities of the debate
process are probably not your average American citizen. The point of this is, that Kerry may have won the debate, but the votes decide who becomes
president. Debate:Kerry Election: Bush

Before I get into my points I must add that the Gay Marriage amendment failed to pass.

Moving on. This was the debate to watch, the others really don't matter, with the exception of Cheney/Edwards Happyfest next week. It is a done deal
because of the coverage involved. All of the networks were showing the full thing and so was every cable/sat news channel. The estimated audience was
around 70 million and maybe a tenth of that will concentrate on the next debates.

First impressions count. Kerry came off as an articulate well informed gentleman willing to make his point but listen to others.

George came off as an ordinary guy out of his depth. The pauses were cringeworthy.

I felt Kerry somehow busted Bush up in the very first statement. He deliberately took the advantage and did "Mr Nice Guy" talking about the
Hurricane and how he's praying for Floridians, then he moved onto his question and answered it well with seconds to spare. Bush appeared riled and
quickly attempted to cover.

First impressions count. Kerry came off as an articulate well informed gentleman willing to make his point but listen to others.

George came off as an ordinary guy out of his depth. The pauses were cringeworthy..........................

Mr Average Guy isn't cutting it anymore. Leadership is required.

My thoughts exactly, and I DID cringe! and wince!

Did you see the Daily Show afterwards? When they said Bush came off as being "borderline retarded" (they were joking), I just lost it!

Towards the end of the debate, I cracked my wife up...

Bush was talking, and I said each line of his response BEFORE HE DID!!!

It was THAT repetitive...

"It's the wrong message to our troops, It's the wrong message to our allies, It's the wrong message to the Iraqis"

I said each line BEFORE
he did!

Kerry won hands down....and went up a notch in my book (despite that armor comment, which Kerry voted against...but Bush is a bigger fool for not
pouncing on it...) Bush came off like the stammering idiot we know him to be (and still can't pronounce "nukular", hehe...).

EDIT: Can't wait to see the Edwards/Cheney debate....Cheney's going to get OWNED, hehe.....

I though it was funny Bush said "The american people decide when to go to war." then right after that he said, "I decided to go to war in Iraq
because..." I'm ashamed he is my president, he represents us all and makes such a fool of himself.

Even though the debate seemed to last forever, and BUSH said many many words, he kept repeating TWO things. These are the only two things he said the
whole night.

1. I want to dominate the world, please call me Napoleon. (his actual words were along the lines of "A world leader needs to have strong resolve, and
I believe I am that world leader")

and

2. I have nothing to say so I will call Kerry a woman because it is easier to do than thinking of something to say cause everything else I say will be
a lie. (his actual words were along the lines of "A world leader (see number one) needs to be consistent in his thinking. The only thing consistenent
about my opponent is his inconsistency.")

So with this in mind, it seems to me that Kerry (even though I hate the bastard as much or more than I hate Shrub Boy) won the debate. He had a lot
more to say and was a bit more methodical and thought provoking. Any talking head can get up there and repeat the same anser for nearly every
question.

I don't like *awkward silences* so i was physically cringing when he was pausing. I didn't manage to see the daily show because we don't get comedy
central, however i'll see it tomorrow night as CNNInternational broadcasts it at weekends.

You know, I actually feel sorry for him. He looked so small and stupid.

John Stewart: (looking at a clip of Kerry writing during Bush speaking) As you can see, Kerry is furiously writing something while Bush
speaks....let's see what it is....

(they go to a zoom of the writing..."I am SO crushing him...")

I am surprised that no one else caught Kerry's biggest flaw, IMO. He said that we should have waited for NATO to take action on Iraq; we
should waid for NATO to take action againse Iran; but, should go it alone against North Korea.

He said we should have bi-latteral TALKS...hardly the same as going it alone militarily... One things for sure, Bush's plan ISN'T working
(whatever that is), as North Korea announced they have now made weapons from their nuclear materials, and could have as many as 8 nukes ready to
go....

Originally posted by Gazrok
Kerry won hands down....and went up a notch in my book (despite that armor comment, which Kerry voted against...but Bush is a bigger fool for not
pouncing on it...)

No doubt that Bush missed an opportunity to "pounce" on the armor comment. Had he addressed that vote at that time in response to the armor, or
phrased it differnetly after the next question, Kerry would have never had the chance to give the "which is worse" line.

I watched the late night reruns of the debate, just to see what I missed after I stopped paying complete attention.

One thing I missed was the answer to the very next question (after the armor comment) where he said something to the effect that when he saw errors he
tries to fix them. The irony of my earlier observation made me laugh.

But to critique:

Kerry had varied "rhetoric lines". Bush didn't have as many prepared.
Points go to Kerry for preparing "prepackaged zingers".

Because Kerry had more than a handful of prepackaged lines, he was not as redundant as Bush.
Points go to Kerry for properly using "prepackaged zingers".

Honestly, I do not doubt Kerry "won" the debate.

However, I am left with an issue that goes beyond the armor issue.

I agree with Kerry that more attention should have been (should be) given to North Korea. However, I have no doubts that the "hardline" that Kerry
was talking would have led to war. Mind you, this was a big "what if" scenario. While it is pretty obvious that bilateral talks would not have
succeeded any more (or less) than the multilateral talks going on now, the "will not allow" attitude could have only been enforced one way. That
enforcement would be guaranteed to escalate into a situation that had no viable exit strategy.

I have to wonder if Kerry thought through the "rhetoric" he was applying to that "If I was in charge" scenario.

Bush may have lost the debate last night, but there was one point that he made that i have been saying for a while now. It's evident that while
Kerry disagrees with the war, the reasons for the war, and the way the war has been fought, he is still going to keep soldiers there and finish out
the war. Or at least he won't be pulling anyone out anytime soon. And even if he does pull soldiers out, he has admitted that he will replace them
with a fresh batch of soldiers (cough cough...DRAFT). So, with all the bashing of this war, how can he expect the soldiers of this war and the
military leaders to respect him and fight for him?

The "Debate" last night was WAAAAAAY too narrow in terms of topic coverage for any meaningful discussion on US-International relations or some hard
facts concerning the "Phoney War on Terror":

Notice: There was hardly a whisper of the word "ISRAEL" all night: and absolutely no mention of Israel's continued illegal building of settlements
in Occupied Palestine (Gaza, East Jerusalem, the West Bank) or of the "Wall" encroaching on Palestinian farmland or the fact that Ariel Sharon
basically told the US to "stick their ROAD MAP where the Sun Don't Shine" --yet no threat to cut off the $12 Billion US tax payer dollars we give
that tiny rogue nation every year...

To say nothing of the International Condemnation the US has been facing for more than 20 years as an UNEVEN BROKER in the Middle East, with the US
acting more like Israel's little WHORE than the last remaining Super Power in the world.

Of course mentioning "Israel" in any national debate is taboo in the US these days-----and that whole "can of worms" might well have brought up
the "uncomfortable fact" of Kerry's REAL LAST NAME (Kohn) and that his paternal grandfather (Fritz Kohn) was (Ashkenazi) Jewish who converted to
Catholicism, then quietly changed his name to the very Irish-goyim sounding "Kerry", then commited suicide in Boston in 1921... but I digress.

The whole so called "debate" last night was a heavilly scripted light and shadow Show for the Masses---both "candidates" are members of the ultra
elitist-secretive Yale "Skull & Bones" Society----a fact which suggests the differences between the two ---Tweedle Dumb and Tweedle Dumber----are
only cosmetic.

Originally posted by GradyPhilpott
I didn't watch the debate, because I was working on something, but I listend quite intently, so the visual impact has no meanng to me. I have heard
all the pundits speak about what they saw and heard and I can't dispute that.

Well, Grady, you should have watched it, since the "visual" effects were extremely important. Of course, Bush looked so pathetic, so desperate and
irritated...just what I expected of him.

1) Kerry is very eloquent and despite his two obvious faux pas (the Treblinka one - not very clever one to make, and the NY subway closure) he seemed
really prepared for the debate, which to him appears to mean attack your opponent whilst being vague about your intent. In most cases- he appeared to
be offensive to his opponent rather than show that he would be superior in the role as President of the United States.

2) It is easy to find fault with the work of someone who is already doing the work. It's more difficult to find fault with someone who has all the
answers but has never done the job - in this case as President. I think John Kerry's record in congress sucks lemons, yet Bush stayed respectful.

3) Although there were potentially so many ad hominem attacks that Bush could have launched at John Kerry in retaliation, he chose to be the bigger
man and address his points and discuss the topics.

4) I noticed that Bush was shocked and frequently outraged by the things Kerry was saying. It was pretty obvious that he was either peeved or had a
headache.

In conclusion my take on the debate is Kerry won the battle and lost the war. I believe he came across as a weak intellectual who would try to fix the
hole in the roof with words.

The Above Top Secret Web site is a wholly owned social content community of The Above Network, LLC.

This content community relies on user-generated content from our member contributors. The opinions of our members are not those of site ownership who maintains strict editorial agnosticism and simply provides a collaborative venue for free expression.